It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What Capitalism Isn't

page: 7
40
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sapien82

Originally posted by psychederic
reply to post by truthquest
 


Gentlemen : don't worry : any job could be done with robots and IA

Please evolve


well that maybe true , but robots could maybe not replace artists or musicians , in the creative sense , the day we teach a robot to learn to draw and create something from its own imagination is the day humans have evolved to their highest potential



Robots and AI could do those things and most likely if this world progresses eventually they will do those things without humans, anything humans can do, a more effective machine can do better and more efficiently, "because its a more effective machine". Most of this capitalism, , communism, socialism, parasitism, corporatism things ideologies come from the fact that unlike machines we got to get along with each other and take in to account our "life processes" so one mans capitalism is another's fascism or communism. Everybody will do what is best for themselves, there group or constituents. Politics and government is a constant battle for equilibrium, if it is not for equilibrium well then may the man standing last be right, you see might is right. Ideologies like capitalism and all others are self serving memetic programs of control, rhetoric, believes, lifestyles, and the will to power or progress or to be the best, or whatever you want to call it, play nice or don't play at all, or is it he who cheats gets ahead and does not have to play nice, nothing works in the long scope of things, only for its due time. Every dog has its day, why do people think anything works right when history has shown that to not be the case. Whatever they believe watch how far that believe will last in the face of time and change.




posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Oh yes it is...the problem is that power has been given to a select few companies only and that is NOT part of a true Capitalist system...


Power has not been 'given' to select companies. Their power comes from the wealth we created with our labour.



In fact it has been the new "left" who created the whole illusion that fascism is a rightwing ideology...

Rightwing ideology = LIMITED/SMALL GOVERNMENT

Fascism = Corporations own everything including the government...

Fascism has a central authority controlling everything, and that my friend is a Socialist idea.

You can't have a small/limited government in fascism.


The idea of right wing equaling limited government is complete BS and an American re-writing of history. There is nothing to support that claim. Go anywhere else in the world and tell them you're 'right-wing' and they'll get the impression you are a jack-booted, authoritarian, nazi sympathizer.

Look at the history of Europe, where fascism was very popular for awhile, and show me where they reduced government.

Look for Mussolini, Franco, Hitler...

Socialism is not authority controlling everything, it is a system where the workers control everything collectively, as in worker cooperatives.


Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other loyalties. It emphasizes a myth of national or racial rebirth after a period of decline or destruction.

www.publiceye.org...


right wing

–noun
1.
members of a conservative or reactionary political party, or those opposing extensive political reform.
2.
such a political party or a group of such parties.
3.
that part of a political or social organization advocating a conservative or reactionary position: The union's right wing favored a moderate course of action.

dictionary.reference.com...



Wrong, in a true capitalist system the person who produces something owns it... There is no central authority in a true capitalist system because people own what they produce...


When you work at joe blows factory you do not own what you produce, joe blow does.

Capitalism itself is a central authority and without government it simply can not work because capitalism has to protect it's interests.
What would stop the workers from taking over their work places? Why would we sit around broke when we could take over the means of production and take the profits for ourselves?


...Oh, that must be why every true Socialist state has shown us throughout history the truth of Socialism/communism right?..... From the U.S.S.R., Cuba, Vietnam, China, North Korea etc etc... I guess you must be right....


None of those countries were socialist. See if you new what socialism was, and not what you're told by capitalists, then you would be able to use your gray matter and figure out what is what. It's really not that hard.

None of those countries were worker controlled, they had a state, a government, capitalism, and a dictator. That is NOT socialism.


Why "Socialism"?
Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.

flag.blackened.net...

The only time socialism was really tried was in Spain in the 1930's when the workers collectivized the work places and production raised by 20%.
anarchy.wikia.com...


and please do not even try to claim none of them were truly Socialist/Communist because that would only show you to be another "new left" who doesn't want to accept what history has shown us...


I just did.


...Except that once again that is not capitalism.... You are confusing capitalism with Socialism/communism...

In socialism/communism, as in fascism, the means of production is owned by a few WHO CLAIM TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE, meanwhile in capitalism if you harvest something in your land, or you invent or produce something you own it...


Oh dear.


capitalism
- 5 dictionary results
Financial Dictionary

Capitalism definition

An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production.

dictionary.reference.com...


ap·i·tal·ism audio (kp-tl-zm) KEY

NOUN:

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

education.yahoo.com...

Need more?



I guess that's why we don't find sweat shops in China, Vietnam, Cuba, and every other Socialist/Communist country right?...


Again they are not socialist or communist countries (and they can't be both btw).

www.mtholyoke.edu...


Wrong, it has been socialist/communist systems who have taken advantage of the people.


Again you are basing your opinion on what you are told is socialism, not what it actually is.


It is true that there are corporations who have taken advantage of "socialism/communism" but if those "socialist/communist" systems didn't exist most of the sweat shops around the world would cease to exist...


Again there are no socialist countries and the fact they have sweatshops proves that. Why if the system was worker ran would they put themselves in sweatshops? They are there because the capitalist system forces workers to compete for jobs, they are in sweatshop because they are competing with western companies.



It is not my misunderstanding because unlike you I actually LIVED socialism/communism meanwhile you are swallowing the cool-aid given to you...


No you didn't, you probably lived in a dictatorship.



Oh boy... again as shown by every socialist/communist nation around the world you are wrong sorry to say...


Again there are no socialist/communist nations.


In socialism/communism a few people in power CLAIM to represent the people when they don't...


Nope that is what we have now. In a socialist system government, state is not required.


Again, in any large society there is ALWAYS a need for a government, and when you give that government ALL POWER, the people are left with none...


No one wants to give the government any power. You have to get your misconceptions about socialism and government, they are two separate things politics and economics. Socialism is an economic system and requires no state or government, it is purely worker ran.


I am sorry to say that once again you are wrong.
In capitalism if you produce something you own it...


No you don't, the owner of where you work owns it.


In fascism if you produce something the corporation/government owns it... hence fascism does not need capitalism.


Again capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production and nothing to do with you owning things. Corporations are capitalistic unless they are owned by the government, and fascism uses a mixture of both.


In fascism the corporation/government USES capitalism so that the rich elite become richer by selling the services and products that the workers make or provide.


And just above you said it doesn't need capitalism? Again you need to learn capitalism is not markets unless there is private ownership of the means of production.


Where is it that the rich elites who own corporations go to for cheap labor?... for the most part they go to SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST nations...


Or so called socialist countries. Again this is because of capitalism and the workers being forced to compete for jobs.


A few rich people who take advantage of the situation in other countries does not define capitalism...


No one said it did. I already defined it...

'The private ownership of the means of production'.

That very fact takes advantage of all of us, including you, unless you derive your living from the labour of others, but I doubt you'd be here if that was the case.

Capitalism creates an artificial economy where resources are kept artificially scarce in order to make profit for the private owner. If this wasn't the case then we wouldn't have to compete for jobs in order to purchase what we need.

Edit; not sure why everything came out in italics, I checked and can't find any stray code...

[edit on 7/23/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   
You forgot a few. Capitalism doesn't involve enslaving people. OR waging war with people. Or white collar robbing people. Or political kickbacks to big business. Or making the middle class think they have a say in what's going on.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 




Socialism is not authority controlling everything, it is a system where the workers control everything collectively, as in worker cooperatives.


Co-ops are only viable if cooperation is not mandatory. If co-ops are run by 'higher ups' of sorts, you just made more of the same. Even a democratically run co-op is subject to tyranny as Democracy itself is deeply flawed.



When you work at joe blows factory you do not own what you produce, joe blow does.


So if I own my labor, can I sell it?

Absolutely, and that is exactly what I do when I accept a wage. Wages aren't slavery, but an exchange of something I have (labor) for something I want (money).



Capitalism itself is a central authority and without government it simply can not work because capitalism has to protect it's interests.


Profit is a noble interest. Profit means progress.... it means more for more people. Profit is how future investment is sparked. The only other ways to invest in the future are through voluntary donations (again, where does that money come from) and mandatory (forced) taxation which is nothing short of exploitation.



What would stop the workers from taking over their work places? Why would we sit around broke when we could take over the means of production and take the profits for ourselves?


I guess the 'workers' could revolt and take over the means of production. But violence only causes more violence and would lead to the revolt being killed or a Soviet style dictatorship or oligarchy. To think that the 'workers' can revolt without militaristic hierarchies being formed is naive.

Also, revolting would be like the workers cutting of their own air supply. It is not in their self-interest to do so.



None of those countries were socialist. See if you new what socialism was, and not what you're told by capitalists, then you would be able to use your gray matter and figure out what is what. It's really not that hard.


So he doesn't know what socialism is and you don't know what capitalism is. Cute.



Again there are no socialist countries and the fact they have sweatshops proves that. Why if the system was worker ran would they put themselves in sweatshops?


They already did put themselves in sweat shops. The other alternative is to work the fields (like they did for centuries) and those working conditions make sweat shops look like Hyatt's.



They are there because the capitalist system forces workers to compete for jobs, they are in sweatshop because they are competing with western companies.


Force is violence. Circumstances can't use violence, but governments, syndicates, and the labor union mafia can.... and do.



Again there are no socialist/communist nations.


When you consider the original socialism this is true, but the fact is, for pure socialism to work no one can use force or coercion to ensure party loyalty. So, ironically, socialism can only work in a system (or lack there-of) of freedom and voluntary associations.... a free market.



it is purely worker ran.


It is not reasonable to assume that all people under a socialist system are all on the same page. If I was in the system you mention, I would try to leave. With this in mind, socialism can only work as an alternative to other existing system that one can freely join or leave. Like two factories side by side. One is socialist, one is capitalist. The workers are not forced to work at either one, but they coexist and actively compete for better products, better workers (thus heightened work conditions for both), and better pay.



Again capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production and nothing to do with you owning things.


But self-ownership is the basis for free market ideas. I choose not to use the word capitalism too much, as it is muddy as the word socialism.



Corporations are capitalistic unless they are owned by the government, and fascism uses a mixture of both.


Corporations are also a fascist principle, in direct conflict with the free market. Corporations are a government created moral hazard.



Or so called socialist countries. Again this is because of capitalism and the workers being forced to compete for jobs.


Forced by whom? I guess you can say that I am forced to provide sustenance for my body or air for my lungs. If you expect to take ownership of your own body, expect to provide for it.



That very fact takes advantage of all of us, including you, unless you derive your living from the labour of others, but I doubt you'd be here if that was the case.


Well, the problem, either way, is the existence of government. 'Private' ownership or 'public' ownership, it all turns to crap when government and the violence inherent in the system gets involved.



Capitalism creates an artificial economy where resources are kept artificially scarce in order to make profit for the private owner.


Most resources are scarce. If a capitalist tries to artificially keep resources scarce, the government is necessary to enforce it. It is too difficult to artificially keep resources scarce without violence or complete secrecy(which means that resource cannot be sold, thus not a good idea either).



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Come Clean
You forgot a few. Capitalism doesn't involve enslaving people. OR waging war with people. Or white collar robbing people. Or political kickbacks to big business. Or making the middle class think they have a say in what's going on.



You know this is getting old really old, if capitalism does not involve those things then explain how those things happen'd. Because we live in a capitalistic society by majority. All those things you say can be applied to any system capitalism is no different then any of them.

Capitalism doesn't involve enslaving people: Well if it does not, then how else will one capitalize on the production of a labor or the starting of a business. Waiving a magic wand around. How

OR waging war with people: Waging war is a booming enterprise and a very good investment for anybody who wants to capitalize on it. It has been capitalized on from the beginning of time from way before Egypt ever since one cave man wanted a bigger cave, but the problem the cave was occupied by others.. but one day they weren't looking and it was time to capitalize on that fact.


Or white collar robbing people: Really how do you think they became white collar by building there own mansions or jet planes, nope by robbing people covertly that is how. Like that dude with the pyramid scheme what was his name Bernie madoff, and if you think he is in prison oh man...what can I say, we live in a place were if you have money you get, a get out of jail card. Though he would have to be covert about it, and even make a few stories about being in prison.
Oh man when your a billionaire I think you could pay a look alike to go to prison for you and pay for all the paperwork necessary to actually be you.


Or political kickbacks to big business: Really how does one come to that conclusion, capitalism is about making as much money as you can freely. So how is one supposed do that if his hands are tied, that is not capitalism, are you a communist why would you want to imped the natural process of capitalizing on politics and rhetoric. Its a gold mine.


Or making the middle class think they have a say in what's going on: But of course the middle class has a say in what's going on. They just cant afford to do anything about what is said. That is socialistic and socialism is another word for free...right.

But of course a enlightened mind would say "there is no such thing as free", well then since Capitalism is a free trade enterprise, and Socialism is a enterprise that gives free services. And Communism is being free for all by being equal. Then there is no such thing as any of them. The truth is none of these systems are new, they have been around for ages, they don't change, the only thing that changes is peoples perspective on them, which is determined by the age and time.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
I would even go on to say that capitalism isn't even a system. It, like socialism in its pure, Proudhon sense, is more of a method of production.

This is a very shallow comparison of the difference between the two.
Capitalism- bank
Socialism- credit union

They coexist in a free society.
In this example, I use profit to mean a value over the resource cost of production. It could be measured in money or goods, but it means that they are taking out more than they brought in, or at least they created something of more value out of stuff with less(like turning wheat *yuk* into bread *yum*).

The capitalist factory makes widgets(yep, I brought out these bad boys) and tries to make a profit for the shareholders and CEO's and to fund future investment. People are payed based on the scarcity of their job, how well they perform, and how difficult it is but ultimately, how much they are willing to work for. Profits, as well as net-losses, belong to the shareholders.

The socialist factory makes widgets and tries to make a profit for the workers who have a direct connection to the profits of their labor and to make future investments. They are paid (or given sustenance in some form) equally according to their labor directly by their labor. 'Profits' belong to the workers, as do net-losses.

@galad



You know this is getting old really old, if capitalism does not involve those things then explain how those things happen'd.


Violence inherent in the system.... government.

Again, capitalism isn't really a system, more of a method of investing and running a business.



Capitalism doesn't involve enslaving people: Well if it does not, then how else will one capitalize on the production of a labor or the starting of a business. Waiving a magic wand around.


Trading is not slavery. Trading something I have for something I want or need is beneficial to both parties involved in the trade.



How


IF I capitalize on my own labor, is that slavery?



OR waging war with people: Waging war is a booming enterprise and a very good investment for anybody who wants to capitalize on it.


Not going to argue this point too much. Governments, syndicates, and people in collusion with either of those two capitalize from war. You are using capitalize literally.



Or white collar robbing people: Really how do you think they became white collar by building there own mansions or jet planes, nope by robbing people covertly that is how.


More collusion with government. Fraud, and force are both things the government won't let other people use without permission. Madoff was taking advantage of their insane system.



Or political kickbacks to big business:


More government intervention.



Or making the middle class think they have a say in what's going on: But of course the middle class has a say in what's going on. They just cant afford to do anything about what is said. That is socialistic and socialism is another word for free...right.


The only people that have a say in whats going on are the jerks in government, and the jerks that are friends with the government jerks. Their is only two classes. You and I, the people.... and the jerks. Down with the jerks.



But of course a enlightened mind would say "there is no such thing as free", well then since Capitalism is a free trade enterprise, and Socialism is a enterprise that gives free services.


There is a such thing as the absence of violence and coercion. This absence is the essence of freedom. Free as in 'not forced' not as in 'no cost'.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
reply to post by ANOK
 


Co-ops are only viable if cooperation is not mandatory. If co-ops are run by 'higher ups' of sorts, you just made more of the same. Even a democratically run co-op is subject to tyranny as Democracy itself is deeply flawed.

So if I own my labor, can I sell it?

Absolutely, and that is exactly what I do when I accept a wage. Wages aren't slavery, but an exchange of something I have (labor) for something I want (money).


But the wage you except is only a very small percentage of what your labour is really worth. If the profit of what you produce didn't go to a 'private owner' but back to you, your labour would earn you far more money.



Profit is a noble interest. Profit means progress.... it means more for more people. Profit is how future investment is sparked. The only other ways to invest in the future are through voluntary donations (again, where does that money come from) and mandatory (forced) taxation which is nothing short of exploitation.


I define profit as the money made from the sale of the product produced that goes directly to the capitalist owner, the capitalists wage. Money that could go to the worker, instead of an owner who does nothing but own the means of production and produces nothing themselves.



I guess the 'workers' could revolt and take over the means of production. But violence only causes more violence and would lead to the revolt being killed or a Soviet style dictatorship or oligarchy. To think that the 'workers' can revolt without militaristic hierarchies being formed is naive.


Why would it have to be violent? The workers have the strength of numbers, without a state to protect the capitalists interests then who would stop the majority from simply ousting the capitalists and taking over the means of production themselves?

The capitalist system IS violent. That's not socialists in Iraq controlling the flow of oil to keep it artificially scarce in order to fleece you.


Also, revolting would be like the workers cutting of their own air supply. It is not in their self-interest to do so.


How so? The workers run things now, the capitalist does nothing but collect from the exploitation of the people that actually run and produce. All that would happen is the owner would no longer own the means to exploit, and all profits would go to the workers themselves.



So he doesn't know what socialism is and you don't know what capitalism is. Cute.


Huh? I define capitalism as the 'private ownership of the means of production', which is the only definition that matters for my argument as to why socialism is a better economic system for the majority of people.



They already did put themselves in sweat shops. The other alternative is to work the fields (like they did for centuries) and those working conditions make sweat shops look like Hyatt's.


If there wasn't a world wide capitalist economy then China would not have to compete with other countries on the world market. They could produce what they needed, and not have to work in sweat shops producing crap they, or we, don't need just to make money and compete with the world economic system.



Force is violence. Circumstances can't use violence, but governments, syndicates, and the labor union mafia can.... and do.


Obsessed with violence? Force is not necessarily violent. People can be forced to do things simply from their lack of economic power.



When you consider the original socialism this is true, but the fact is, for pure socialism to work no one can use force or coercion to ensure party loyalty. So, ironically, socialism can only work in a system (or lack there-of) of freedom and voluntary associations.... a free market.


Yes socialism is a system that works through voluntary associations.
Why do you keep associating it to force, no one is being forced to do anything.



It is not reasonable to assume that all people under a socialist system are all on the same page. If I was in the system you mention, I would try to leave. With this in mind, socialism can only work as an alternative to other existing system that one can freely join or leave. Like two factories side by side. One is socialist, one is capitalist. The workers are not forced to work at either one, but they coexist and actively compete for better products, better workers (thus heightened work conditions for both), and better pay.


OK lets say there are two 'factories' open in our town.

One is privately owned by Joe Blow. The other is a collective/cooperative and owned by the workers. You can choose who to work for...

Both companies make approx $10,000 a week and both employ 100 workers.

Joe Blow pays his workers $1 an hour and they all work 40hrs per week.
That's $4000 in wages. $4000 in company costs [?]. $2000 goes to JB. When the company improves, and profits go up, the wages stay the same but JB gets wealthier.

The worker ran company makes the same weekly income. But because there is no JB the $2000 extra goes to the workers. When this company increases it's income the workers income is directly increased.

Where would you work? Which set of workers do you think would be more motivated?

(I understand that is a very simplified example but I think the point is made)



But self-ownership is the basis for free market ideas. I choose not to use the word capitalism too much, as it is muddy as the word socialism.


If you choose to ignore what it is, and let the mud confuse you, that's not my problem.

Capitalism is not 'self ownership'. Capitalism owns you because it owns the means to produce what you need for life. You can not work outside the capitalist system and survive. There is no choice in this.
Even if you 'own' a business, the food you rely on is still not in your control.



Corporations are also a fascist principle, in direct conflict with the free market. Corporations are a government created moral hazard.


I don't disagree, except I don't equate the 'free-market' with capitalism, I see that as a sham. How can the markets be truly free when the means of production are privately owned?



Forced by whom? I guess you can say that I am forced to provide sustenance for my body or air for my lungs. If you expect to take ownership of your own body, expect to provide for it.


They are forced by the system to compete with jobs because jobs are an artificially scarce resource. And please quit equating force to violence, it does have other definitions you know.


Force;
power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power: the force of circumstances; a force for law and order.

dictionary.reference.com...

Keep it in context there buddy...



Well, the problem, either way, is the existence of government. 'Private' ownership or 'public' ownership, it all turns to crap when government and the violence inherent in the system gets involved.


Again please, Socialism does not require government or the state.
Traditionally socialism was an alternative to that, whoever is telling you different is lying. The main reason for most anti-capitalists is because it requires a controlling state.


Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.

flag.blackened.net...



Most resources are scarce. If a capitalist tries to artificially keep resources scarce, the government is necessary to enforce it. It is too difficult to artificially keep resources scarce without violence or complete secrecy(which means that resource cannot be sold, thus not a good idea either).


What resources are naturally scarce?

It is not difficult I already explained why resources are kept scarce, underproduction.

If for example feeding people was our goal, as apposed to making 'profit' for capitalists, then all the people who now can't find work would be available. All the people who work for the state now will be available. Untapped resources because capitalism requires a poverty class. Not to mention the machinery that we can make that are not made because of profit. Productivity will rise to meet demands of the people not the profits of the capitalists.

In Spain, despite fighting the fascists (yes Hitler), the people increased productivity by 20% in 2 years. Imagine what could be done now with our technology?

It seems to me that the capitalist supporters run out of anything to support their beliefs pretty quick, and the whole debate focuses on why you think socialism wouldn't work when you are basing your opinions on mostly lies and misrepresentations of history.

[edit on 7/23/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 




But the wage you except is only a very small percentage of what your labour is really worth.


Its worth exactly what you get paid for it. That is the beautiful thing about price.



If the profit of what you produce didn't go to a 'private owner' but back to you, your labour would earn you far more money.


Wouldn't you also be taking advantage of the capitalist? Its not your factory, you didn't build it. You didn't bring in the materials. The point is, all parties benefit from the trade.



I define profit as the money made from the sale of the product produced that goes directly to the capitalist owner, the capitalists wage.


Profit is turning 12 units into 15. It cost 12 units to produce, leaving 3 profit. All parties profit from trade. The wage earner trades something (labor) to get something else (money, etc) worth more to him than the labor. Without profit from the bottom all the way to the top, people will never be able to raise their standard of living. Look at China compared to during the Great Leap Forward.



Why would it have to be violent? The workers have the strength of numbers, without a state to protect the capitalists interests then who would stop the majority from simply ousting the capitalists and taking over the means of production themselves?


Unless you make the capitalist see the error in his ways and repent, it would necessarily have to be violent.



The capitalist system IS violent.


Its not a system. Government is a system. Capitalism is a business strategy.



That's not socialists in Iraq controlling the flow of oil to keep it artificially scarce in order to fleece you.


Don't make this comparison unless you are willing to admit that it was socialists who caused massive wars, genocides, and famines during the 20th century. Mao was no more a socialist than Bush is a Capitalist.



How so? The workers run things now, the capitalist does nothing but collect from the exploitation of the people that actually run and produce.


Are the workers capable of running a factory, making a long-term business model, and executing it with the same ease as a capitalist? I think not.



All that would happen is the owner would no longer own the means to exploit, and all profits would go to the workers themselves.


Or maybe to a party boss.



Socialism and capitalism are strategies. Both can work without the use of violence as a means to control.



If there wasn't a world wide capitalist economy then China would not have to compete with other countries on the world market.


They would also be stuck in the 19th century.



They could produce what they needed, and not have to work in sweat shops producing crap they, or we, don't need just to make money and compete with the world economic system.


What they produce in sweat shops is sufficient to provide for what they need, and increasingly what they want. The Chinese are no longer surviving, but actually beginning to buy things that make their quality of life better.



Obsessed with violence?


Yes.... it is the very problem with the world. Everyone expects to solve their problems with violence. From the founding fathers of the USA to the 'workers' in your factory... people wish to use violence for their own selfish ends.



Why do you keep associating it to force, no one is being forced to do anything.


Because socialism is not a good model for prosperity. Price is impossible for a system without constant competition of market forces to calculate. Socialism is about maintaining. Capitalism allows anyone to invest in the future of all humanity.



The worker ran company makes the same weekly income. But because there is no JB the $2000 extra goes to the workers. When this company increases it's income the workers income is directly increased.


Besides the fact that this model calls into question the ability of the factory to make a profit, how would the factory get built? The entire point of capitalism is a motivating factor to go forward, to do research and development, and to make a product that even your employees can buy. Socialism is, relative to capitalism, stagnant.



Where would you work? Which set of workers do you think would be more motivated?


Which factory would be relevant in 10 yrs? The factory investing its profits into future with the profit motive would easily overshadow the socialist factory in a few years. Factory workers, by and large, do not possess the ability to make savvy investments over a long period of time, capitalists do. Thats why they make the big bucks.



Capitalism is not 'self ownership'.


its not. I didn't say that. It is, however, not mutual exclusive to self ownership. Neither is socialism.



Capitalism owns you because it owns the means to produce what you need for life.


You own your body, thats the point. If you want to sell your labor, its your right to.



Even if you 'own' a business, the food you rely on is still not in your control.


Even in the anarcho-socialists wet dream none of the means of production are under any control by oneself. It is under control of everyone. You have very little control of anything but your own labor.



don't disagree, except I don't equate the 'free-market' with capitalism, I see that as a sham.


I don't either. A free market is a lack of a system, and capitalism is not a system. One is a means for how everything works, the other is a means for how certain human exchanges are made.



They are forced by the system to compete with jobs because jobs are an artificially scarce resource. And please quit equating force to violence, it does have other definitions you know.


"Forced by whom? I guess you can say that I am forced to provide sustenance for my body or air for my lungs. If you expect to take ownership of your own body, expect to provide for it."

The whole 'by whom' is the entire difference I am making. No one is forcing you besides nature or circumstance.



Again please, Socialism does not require government or the state.


And neither does Capitalism.



Traditionally socialism was an alternative to that, whoever is telling you different is lying.


Preaching to the choir. I know what socialism is. It, like capitalism, is a way to produce goods and the ownership of the means to produce them.



What resources are naturally scarce?


Virtually all.



It is not difficult I already explained why resources are kept scarce, underproduction.


So the reason everyone does not live in a giant beach-front mansion, drive a Koeniggsegg, and have a puppy is simply because we haven't made enough of them?



Productivity will rise to meet demands of the people not the profits of the capitalists.


This is what any economic planner thinks until they realize they can't plan an economy. It is simply impossible. Productivity is not something that occurs through random chance because all people own the factors of production, but through forward-looking investors who see a future that could have better, cheaper widgets.



It seems to me that the capitalist supporters run out of anything to support their beliefs pretty quick, and the whole debate focuses on why you think socialism wouldn't work when you are basing your opinions on mostly lies and misrepresentations of history.


I am not saying socialism won't work, I am saying a capitalist factory would work better.

mnemeth and yourself have the same problem. One can't stand socialism because they don't understand its voluntary, and the other can't stand capitalism for the same reason.

Capitalism works as a way to promote growth through investment in the future. Socialism seems to try to promote growth through economic equality.

I know which one I like better.

again this....



and the whole debate focuses on why you think socialism wouldn't work when you are basing your opinions on mostly lies and misrepresentations of history.


won't work on me. I know all about socialisms history. I know Marx hijacked it and made it a state cult thing. I cannot see how you can still see capitalism as the problem though. I understand you would prefer socialism on your own grounds, but that is a minor detail between two people who have fairly similar beliefs.

Here.... the great uniter.

Do you think a state is necessary for human prosperity?

[edit on 23-7-2010 by DINSTAAR]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
But the wage you except is only a very small percentage of what your labour is really worth. If the profit of what you produce didn't go to a 'private owner' but back to you, your labour would earn you far more money.


That is your core fallacy for supporting theft of production equipment (call it communism, socialism, or whatever you want). A typical company makes profits of 5% to 20% when all is accounted for. The way I like to measure a companies profits is to look at the growth of their book value, since fraud in that area happens less often (as opposed to income statements which are the most cooked). What you'll find is the book value of companies grows at something like 5% to 20% in the majority of cases.

Lets take UPS for example. Their book grew from 6.7 to 7.6 billion, a growth of 13%. They have 408,000 employees. Its worth noting that two years ago, their book was 12.2 billion indicating they have screwed up really badly on something, so if UPS was owned by the workers, their total company assets would have actually dropped several billion dollars. But if you just look at the last year, UPS could only really afford to have paid its employees another $2,200 per employee without having to shrink the size of the company. Of course, disbursing that $2,200 could then cause all kinds of problems such as preventing the company from growing or adapting to a new business climate. Therefore, UPS workers really are getting paid at least 85% of the value they are giving to the company.

Its completely true that there are some cases where companies are profiting greatly while the employees make a pittance. Well, you should fully consider the balance against that.... companies that are in serious trouble suffering losses, and yet continue to pay their employees a salary up until the time they default/bankrupt completely.

The idea that the majority of money in a company goes to the owners is a fallacy. Most of a companies money usually goes more to salaries than to anything else.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   
I would like to impress on the right wingers the reality of capitalism that they fail to realize.

Capitalism succeeds with greed. Nothing more, nothing less.

With greed there will always be people that will control all of the money, all of the resources, and all of the power at the expense of everyone else.

At the end of this cycle, most are destitude and will revolt. Thus, the pendulum swings the other dirrection.

Just look at communist China and Russia. Also, most of europe that have become socialized. These countries didn't just one day have a stroke of genius and decide to switch over. No, socialism and communism are the results of greed gone out of control.

Capitalism has always been the default economy of the world. But, Socialism and communism are the consequences of capitalism.

Look at where we are today. Greed under the guise of "free markets" sucked the wealth out of America and the rest of the world. The pendulum has gone too far to the right and is in the process of going too far to the left. A lot of the right wingers like to blame Obama for our economic conditions today. But if you all take a good look at the mirror, where we are today is because of people like you. Your greed and your selfishness and your foolishness brought us here. Now, we all have to suffer as a country because market forces will dictate and we WILL swing very hard to the left.

[edit on 24-7-2010 by SeekingAlpha]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeekingAlpha
I would like to impress on the right wingers the reality of capitalism that they fail to realize.


Your impression is duly noted but your statements are shallow. You have effectively narrowed the argument down to it must be right-wingers that are the following: Capitalist, greedy and have a severe case of tunnel-vision.



Capitalism succeeds with greed. Nothing more, nothing less.

With greed there will always be people that will control all of the money, all of the resources, and all of the power at the expense of everyone else.


Greed succeeds when Government intervention plays its hand in a capitalistic society. Regulations, tariffs, embargoes, etc all effect negatively towards one section of the market and allow scrupulous greed to prevail on the other without the natural balance of a free-market ebb and flow.

Take this for consideration. You and I are both participants within a free-market. Over time, prices rise and fall in conjunction with the scarcity of goods or abundance of. Then, via Government injection that market now favors my production over your production, it no longer is a free-market, but rather a controlled-market. This allows greed to breed and fester far longer than normally would ever happen if the market was reliant upon natural forces.

And as Dina pointed out, capitalism is just the means, not the end. It is a strategy in effecting the basic resources of economics; capital, land and manpower. It is a tool in the allocation and use of those. It is not the market, free or controlled.



Just look at communist China and Russia. Also, most of europe that have become socialized. These countries didn't just one day have a stroke of genius and decide to switch over. No, socialism and communism are the results of greed gone out of control.


This is perhaps your most narrow statement of your post. You have boiled socialism and communism down to a product of greed to justify your above statement that capitalism is just greed. You have taken out political power and maneuvering.



Capitalism has always been the default economy of the world. But, Socialism and communism are the consequences of capitalism.

What? Really? Default economy of the world? Since when? It is a way of allocating resources in efforts to support whatever economic system is in place. May it be free-market or centrally controlled and designed markets.



Look at where we are today. Greed under the guise of "free markets" sucked the wealth out of America and the rest of the world.
Here I agree with you, but the problem isn't the way resources are allocated, but rather the protectionism provided at the barrel of a gun via Government intervention that has produced and allowed greed to grow. It was done under the guise of 'free markets'.

You can continue to interject a left-right view into the argument but that only subjects you to a narrow view of the whole. Seeing that greed knows no political affiliations (just research campaign donations and one sees that corporations, etc. have no affiliation and will dump money to whomever will continue their gravy train) will lead you to be able to examine the argument either for or against the OP in a more objective and astute manner.

As of your last post, what I personally see is someone that hates right-wingers and believe they are the embodiment of greed, so thus through that logic, capitalism must be bad and free-markets drove greed beyond normal market forces. Never mind the ridiculous amounts of regulations, laws, tariffs, etc that Government puts into place to ensure their political allies remain such.

Research why foods and drinks use high-fructose corn syrup rather than glucose or just plain sugar from sugar canes.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I would argue that socialists are more greedy than capitalists.

Not only do they want other peoples money, but they want it without having to work for it.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   
I think one of the main failures of Capitalist ideology is the almost covert likening of Capitalist/free markets with Democracy. I'm not sure if it was intentional or not, but many Capitalists seem to believe that voting with your dollar is easy, effective, and Democratic. However, the reality seems more convoluted in a system where producers have more power than consumers over resources and can either individually or collectively dictate prices/scarcity/quality and so on. Such a view seems to be a weakly-supported perversion of Democracy in order to support Capitalist markets. Truth is- voting with your dollar is NOT Democracy. The success/failure of a business ALSO does not always reflect the greater good nor does it fluctuate according to the holistic importance of issues. This is why a company can profit from polluting the environment... even though their actions are very detrimental, the REAL costs of doing business are sent (sometimes literally) down the river for somebody else to deal with while they work to cut costs and deliver their product. I'm not saying things like boycotts are pointless or ineffective, but overall and on a day to day basis, the organization required to change an undesirable business, business practice, or product outweighs most peoples' will to dedicate the time/energy to organizing and thus such psychology is why unacceptable business practices are accepted even begrudgingly. Call it the cost/benefit ratio of the power of the consumer. Supply/demand cannot save the world, nor can it rescue us from tyranny, it is merely the natural order of markets. Markets must be given a backseat to REAL human freedoms and environmental sustainability, otherwise we're idiots with poor priorities.

[edit on 24-7-2010 by NoHierarchy]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


Producers don't have more power than consumers.

As we can see, American productive capacity has imploded due to the credit expansion brought on by the federal reserve.

Of the mega-corporate producers left, most are either bankrupt OR they are funded by tax dollars.

America has no productive capacity left, its all moved to China. The government figures of American productive capacity are a lie. We make nothing but bombs and bullets.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by DINSTAAR
 






The capitalist factory makes widgets(yep, I brought out these bad boys) and tries to make a profit for the shareholders and CEO's and to fund future investment. People are payed based on the scarcity of their job, how well they perform, and how difficult it is but ultimately, how much they are willing to work for. Profits, as well as net-losses, belong to the shareholders.


What exactly is scarcity of their job, there is no scarcity in any endeavor in this system, unless you try to do it on mars but it wont survive there making widgets to much wasted effort and lavishness, so there is only a hierarchy, it is what works. But not the only way that works, for instance you have your company and workers, but lets say I like your company and workers so I get rid of you and keep both, and to make friends with the rest I give them more profits and less net losses for a time. Corporate take over or as they used to call it, kill and take his stuff or ceasing your assets. The scarcest and most in demand job will always be that.... and by that fact alone there will always be someone needed to do that job, you know its a hard job but some one has to do it.
But anyways from the above quote since profits and losses belong to the shareholders. What does it designate being a shareholder a stake in the corporations heart ie money investment, or work investment, or both ill say both since its a hierarchy. What then defines a shareholder, but a stake in the most misunderstood function of a process being in charge making the rules ie this is what capitalism is so therefore you must follow the rules of capitalism. So then what defines a worker but a option to not understand how a function works based on the rules. Since in the above quote you said that is "capitalism" in that factory setting, ok that is what it will be. I don't really care, all the isms are just words created to validate a function, "the function of explaining what your action is after you have taken it". If that was my reality I would have to say we can do this the easy way or the hard way, but my easy way is your hard way, and my hard way is your impossible way. So lets do business gentlemanly like.



The socialist factory makes widgets and tries to make a profit for the workers who have a direct connection to the profits of their labor and to make future investments. They are paid (or given sustenance in some form) equally according to their labor directly by their labor. 'Profits' belong to the workers, as do net-losses.



Affirmative so that is what a socialist factory is, you know Mao and Lennon and even Marx explained it so therefore it must be true, look at china they are socializing there work with the boss conglomerates from other lands, the people did have a stake in there job to bad it wasn't much of a stake. "Here is a joke" what is the one thing a capitalist and a socialist have in common they both require some sort of communion or they both go bankrupt. funny no........ So ultimately they are both communists because they rely on each other to be, but what the hell is a communist if capitalism and socialism is not even a system of government, but in the minds of those who think it is. Seems more like communism simply is, just a word that means we are doing a transaction without bloodshed eh comrade. Funny no... how words give meaning to actions and deeds.

So what exactly what your communicating to me is since capitalism gives profits and losses to the shareholders. Then in light of recent events the banksters are capitalists that capitalized on the shareholders but since they are one and the same. Why did millions to billions of others pay for it, since they have no stake in being poor and broke. Who's money was it.


In regards to the socialist factory, so what exactly what your communicating to me is since socialism gives profits and losses to the workers. Then in light of recent events the banksters are socialists that were socializing with the workers but since they are not one and the same. One group doesn't have to pay millions and billions to trillions for it. Its not there money. But here is the kicker none alive today will have to pay for it, but mayby the next generation will, or the next after that, or the next after that, ad infinitum.



Violence inherent in the system.... government. Again, capitalism isn't really a system, more of a method of investing and running a business.



If you say so, but others don't seem to think so. At the end the lethargic behavior for the average american is explained by this. There is no government only people in government who say they represent others.




Trading is not slavery. Trading something I have for something I want or need is beneficial to both parties involved in the trade.



No trading is not slavery, but it can be used to trade slaves, and if one is smart and does not call a slave a slave then one does not trade in slaves. Again trading is the essence of society, and all other ideologies are just the news clothes it wears, so what is in fashion now.




IF I capitalize on my own labor, is that slavery?



Depends on how much you get paid for capitalizing on your own labor, and your options. So no and yes. Is this a trick question, Why even write such a question it has nothing to do with capitalism, capitalizing is not done to oneself but for oneself by way of a second or third party mostly.... See aren't word funny. Its also funny how Stalin got people to believe that he was helping them while they died in factories. The same could be done, achieved with this word "capitalism".


cap·i·tal·ize (kp-tl-z)
v.intr To turn something to one's advantage; benefit: capitalize on an opponent's error.
v. cap·i·tal·ized, cap·i·tal·iz·ing, cap·i·tal·iz·es
v.tr.
1. To use as or convert into capital.
2. To supply with capital or investment funds: capitalize a new business.
3. To authorize the issue of a certain amount of capital stock of: capitalize a corporation.
4. To convert (debt) into capital stock or shares.
5. To calculate the current value of (a future stream of earnings or cash flows).
6. To include (expenditures) in business accounts as assets instead of expenses.
7.
a. To write or print in capital letters.
b. To begin a word with a capital letter.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   


Lets take UPS for example. Their book grew from 6.7 to 7.6 billion, a growth of 13%. They have 408,000 employees. Its worth noting that two years ago, their book was 12.2 billion indicating they have screwed up really badly on something, so if UPS was owned by the workers, their total company assets would have actually dropped several billion dollars. But if you just look at the last year, UPS could only really afford to have paid its employees another $2,200 per employee without having to shrink the size of the company. Of course, disbursing that $2,200 could then cause all kinds of problems such as preventing the company from growing or adapting to a new business climate. Therefore, UPS workers really are getting paid at least 85% of the value they are giving to the company.
reply to post by truthquest
 



Wow what a bunch of mombo jombo, what do you work for the production equipment companies or something is your cut not big enough, do you want more. More like disbursing that 2,200 could be kept in the books, or most likely if thats what they said then there was way more, its a shipping company dependent on shipments.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
I hate to burst everybody's bubble, but the USA never had a purely capitalist or purely free market economy. Often for good reason, the American economy always had elements of socialism, monopoly, and other economic systems.

I would also like to report that cats do not always land on their feet, boy scouts sometimes lie, your local Catholic priest might not be celibate, at least some of your lovers' orgasms were not real, and Santa Claus sometimes gives naughty kids really nice presents and forgets to give nice kids nice presents.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 






Just look at communist China and Russia. Also, most of europe that have become socialized. These countries didn't just one day have a stroke of genius and decide to switch over. No, socialism and communism are the results of greed gone out of control.


This is perhaps your most narrow statement of your post. You have boiled socialism and communism down to a product of greed to justify your above statement that capitalism is just greed. You have taken out political power and maneuvering.




Wow political power and maneuvering is a symptom of systems they get paid for that its there job government is only two things, in the business of balancing all or in the bossiness of some other's interests it either governs or is governed period. And greed is the driving force of all societies so far in the world, in fact were not talking about anything more then this simple fact. I like myself better then I like others so therefore I will always do things that is in my benefit. and ill call this etc whatever fits the bill. The dude is right communism and socialism are the end products of capitalism, In soviet Russia they didn't have communism they tried to but they forgot that they themselves were doing it there interest. So they got rid of the old system of capitalism by way of different groups that were in power from the old oligarchy's that controlled everything which came into power because they controlled everything, forcing the populace to there will, by way of capitalizing on them. basically this group called the communists capitalized on this group called the aristocracy they Didn't get along so they eventually killed each other. And got a new form of power that was in the interest of keeping itself in power by way of saying thy were communists but again anybody can say anything they want, but it does not make it true.

To communists america just hasn't progressed far enough in the time line of ideologies. It goes like this everything comes from the only thing that matters number 1 yourself take care of yourself. Capitalism, which requires a little bit of socialism and communism to make it in life. After all no man is a island and if you put 1 man on a island he wont build a jet plane, so therefore numeru onu needs more people to socialize and communicate with to achieve anything from making toilet paper to jet planes. This goes on for some time mostly hundreads of years sometimes thousands, then one power eventually comes to be bigger then others and therefore goes on to look out for its interests using the same systems...Eventually such a entity call it what you will a political party a corporation an ideology a union etc whatever, gets to a point were it can become all encompassing and ties itself into the very fabric of that society and becomes a fascist regime....Skip ahead some time later this faction of control becomes tyrannical in nature because that is the way it is from the reason water runs downhill, to why the earth goes around the sun to satellites going around the earth i'm not going to explain more to it takes to long. So then this faction fascism if has splinters whiting itself and breaks in to little other controlling factions then we get oligarchy's and aristocracy meaning the elite with total control over your life from what you eat to what you do to what you believe to everything and if you don't like it they can kill or imprison you. Skip some time later then there are factions that uprise against the tyrannical elites.... Skip some time later then these other factions succeed in deposing of the elites or displacing them then we get back to capitalism only with a new name. Because like I said the earth goes around the sun, and people will always look out for number one themselves or there group. So capitalism-socialism-communism-fascism-aristocracy-oligarchy to capitalism again usually. I mean look at the founding fathers of the US they came to this continent to escape the oligarchy and aristocracy of the old land basically they saw an opportunity for more fortune then they would ever have under the old systems and took it, skip some time later and we come to today were technology and science have given us more advanced life but they can not change what we are at the core of being, it can only be controlled for the greater good or diverted to other means. But at the core its a human system and like anything humans ever build or thought off it will break eventually. Dudes like Washington and Jefferson didn't change anything they were just smart enough to know were they came from and why they came, and set laws in place hopefully not end up back there.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by galadofwarthethird
 




No trading is not slavery, but it can be used to trade slaves, and if one is smart and does not call a slave a slave then one does not trade in slaves.


Slavery is an act of unwarranted violence, thus it is wrong. Violently controlling others behavior is wrong. If someone trades a slave, it isn't the trade that is evil. Its the premise that one is able own someone else that is wrong.



Depends on how much you get paid for capitalizing on your own labor, and your options.


So how much one can make is the issue.



Is this a trick question


no and yes.



Why even write such a question it has nothing to do with capitalism,


Because you answered the question as someone like yourself would. You don't think people should make exorbitant amounts of money on their investments, whether they utilize the labor of others or not. This ideology is the sickness in the left. Wealthy people who have done something spectacular to earn their money are the enemy.



See aren't word funny.


Word are funny. Bird is word. Bird is funny.



Wow what a bunch of mombo jombo,


So you must be the pot

Capitalism allows for there to be long term investments. While the company is losing money in the first few years, workers are still getting paid. The company's risk and loses are given to the people with the most incite to make the investment worth while, the capitalist (they have the most to lose).



what do you work for the production equipment companies or something is your cut not big enough, do you want more.




More like disbursing that 2,200 could be kept in the books, or most likely if thats what they said then there was way more, its a shipping company dependent on shipments.


Emotional drivel.



And greed is the driving force of all societies so far in the world,


You say it like it is a bad thing. To take care of oneself and to make ones own life better is the noblest of goals. The issue I have is when people try to do this by using violence. Whether in our corporatist system where corporation and state (violence) are virtually the same people, or in a Soviet system where violence is used to evenly distribute wealth, regardless of merit.

Greed is good. Using violence for ones own ends is not.



But at the core its a human system and like anything humans ever build or thought off it will break eventually.


The 'system' you are talking about is not capitalism. Capitalist ideas are perversely integrated into part of the system, but the system itself is not Capitalism.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Yargh how dare there be rich people yargh there should be no rich people yargh, yargh why don't we loot the rich people till they're poor too yargh sounds like a good idea yargh



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join